tiltbillings wrote: You can get a speller-checker with a Google tool bar. It would help.

But that which is called 'mind' [citta] and 'mentality' [mano] and 'consciousness [viññāṇaṃ] arises as one thing and ceases as another . . . . -- S II 95 CDB i 595.

The point here is that mano, as with the other two, is a conditioned, conditioning functioning process, and what we would call "mind" is either mano or citta or viññāṇaṃ, which are terms used to talk about the same conditioned/conditioning causally arisen process in different contexts. Your above "Some" sentence is a bit confused. Do you know what a "dhamma" is in relation to 'mind' [citta] or 'mentality' [mano] or 'consciousness [viññāṇaṃ]?

If the "mind" goes from a calm state to one affected by greed, hatred, and delusion, it is not pure, it is not really pure even in the "calm state." The conditioning factors of greed, hatred, and delusion are still present. It is only when the process we call the "mind" is free of greed, hatred, and delusion -- destroyed by insight -- is the "mind" truly pure.

Yes, you are reason, mind can't be calm by definition, because it's a process, in perpetual mouvement. So wat is calm, and what is pure?

Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma. I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma. I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

What insight mean exactly?

To ask this question is to point to a fairly large hole in your undrtstanding of the Buddha's teachings. Insight, in the context of the Buddha's teachings, refers to a direct seeing. It is not an intellectual process, nor is it a voice you hear after counting to 3.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma. I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

What insight mean exactly?

To ask this question is to point to a fairly large hole in your undrtstanding of the Buddha's teachings. Insight, in the context of the Buddha's teachings, refers to a direct seeing. It is not an intellectual process, nor is it a voice you hear after counting to 3.

I see.It's impermanent. Actualy insight is not impermanent, because not conditioned by knowledge, because you have no doubt, but explication of this insight to others is impermanent, because conditioned. For exemple you dont understand my insight in this topic, i have no doubt about it, but impossible to explain.I has insight of annica and anatta, see anicca with my eyes and body, anatta with my mind. But impossible to explain to others, because this knowledge take different ways in explanantion, is conditioned.

SN 24.1"That which is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, and ranged over by the mind: is permanent or impermanent?""Impermanent, venerable sir."Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

“Thus it is, bhikkhus, when the Tathāgata sees what is to be seen; he does not imagine the seen, does not imagine the not-seen, does not imagine what is to be seen, and does not imagine a seer. When hearing what is to be heard; does not imagine the heard, does not imagine the not-heard, does not imagine what is to be heard, and does not imagine a hearer. When thinking what is to be thought; does not imagine the thought, does not imagine the not-thought, does not imagine what is to be thought, and does not imagine a thinker. When cognizing what is to be cognized; does not imagine the cognized, does not imagine the not-cognized, does not imagine what is to be cognized, and does not imagine a cognizer.

“Thus it is, bhikkhus, being just such with the nature of what is to be seen, heard, thought, and cognized; the Tathāgata is such. And I say that of this such, not another such can be brought forth that surpasses it.

In the Vajrayana tradition, there are two forms of Bodhicitta.This is not an average person's type of daily consciousness (although it exists in everyone under all the layers of muck),but ordinarily refers to those who have taken Bodhisattwa vows.Bodhicitta #1: The wish for all sentient beings to become enlightened, and it is the Bodhisattwa's path to to work toward that. (I know....I know.. I thought that was also an overwhelmingly impossible dream (or nightmare) also when I learned that I had actually taken that vow and contemplated giving back my vows...lol)Bodhicitta #2: This is similar to what is referred to in Hinduism as "Brahma", the Absolute Reality. The Absolute Reality is an experience and cannot be defined very well in words, ie, people who have had near-death experiences understand this realm of reality. Essentially, once all our dross is purified and all of the right circumstances come together, our own soul is able to merge with the Absolute Reality. We become one with everything and are aware of the past, present and future simultaneously, plus the Divine Intelligence behind all of it. Once we return to our conscious body, after this experience, we become two people essentially: One who lives in the 3 dimensional realm and daily life; and one who, at the same time, abides in the knowledge of the Absolute Reality. In other words, our soul is now in union with the living energy of the Absolute Reality, while we continue to function in our body. That awareness of the Absolute Reality is called Bodhicitta, but it is not the Absolute Reality - or Brahma - itself.

Your question is very intelligent and penetrating. I hope you find a bonafide, enlightened master to study with. Much compassion, Zhide